search for: wb_male

...16=>48: 59us vs 19us 16=>44.1: 204us vs 34us 16=>8: 13us vs 7us 48=>8: 32us vs 16us This is actually much faster than I expected. With -O3, the overhead of copying, applying window etc is 20%. With all options, the overhead sinks to 10%. I've done listening tests when converting wb_male.wav to 44.1, 48 and 8khz, and there aren't any obvious artifacts. I also did a 16=>16 test, and the results are delayed by 10ms and within +/- 1 (basically, rounding errors from the FFT). -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Nam...

Alexander Chemeris wrote: > Hi, > > Here are some questions from user point of view. :) > > On 5/29/08, Thorvald Natvig <thorvald at natvig.com> wrote: > >> I've done listening tests when converting wb_male.wav to 44.1, 48 and 8khz, >> and there aren't any obvious artifacts. I also did a 16=>16 test, and the >> results are delayed by 10ms and within +/- 1 (basically, rounding errors >> from the FFT). >> > > Do you plan to use it in VoIP environment? If so, 10m...

Hi, Here are some questions from user point of view. :) On 5/29/08, Thorvald Natvig <thorvald at natvig.com> wrote: > I've done listening tests when converting wb_male.wav to 44.1, 48 and 8khz, > and there aren't any obvious artifacts. I also did a 16=>16 test, and the > results are delayed by 10ms and within +/- 1 (basically, rounding errors > from the FFT). Do you plan to use it in VoIP environment? If so, 10ms of additional latency is a big co...

On 5/29/08, Thorvald Natvig <thorvald at natvig.com> wrote: > Alexander Chemeris wrote: > > On 5/29/08, Thorvald Natvig <thorvald at natvig.com> wrote: > > > I've done listening tests when converting wb_male.wav to 44.1, 48 and 8khz, > > > and there aren't any obvious artifacts. I also did a 16=>16 test, and the > > > results are delayed by 10ms and within +/- 1 (basically, rounding errors > > > from the FFT). > > > > > > > > > > Do you pl...